Reasonable persons still wonder why some others insist that permitting
gay marriage will threaten heterosexual marriage. Now we find
out: it happens as an unintended consequence. Take Texas (please):
AUSTIN — Texans: Are you really married?
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for
attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional
amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal
status of all marriages in the state.
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified
by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of
the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as
Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or
recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”
It appears that the authors of the provision were trying to make the
wording broad enough to capture any conceivable form of gay civil
union, whatever it might be called. But they ended up making it
so broad, that it captures all marraige. It seems
inescapable to conclude that heterosexual marriage is “identical to
marriage.” That is what “true by definition” means.
The remainder of the article outlines the efforts being made to say
that the document does not say what it says. The amusing part of
this is that some of the people making those arguments may be the same
ones who argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a
literal interpretation of their bible.